• LUCZORAMA SHIPWRECK SCAVENGER HUNT GIVEAWAY. 4 Weeks of Fun • 1 Legendary Prize ((OcCre’s Fram Ship)) • Global Crew Welcome!
    **VIEW THREAD HERE**

Discussion The Cost of Kit vs Scratch Build: A Real Divide or Just Perspective?

NMBROOK said:
I have so far spent 35 years working in heavy structural steel fabrication. My actual trade derives from the shipyard. I have friends/colleagues who have built cross channel ferries, offshore supply vessels, the Queen `Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and intercontinental ballistic nuclear submarines. I was involved in the hull strengthening work during the restoration of Cutty Sark. We all followed drawings done by others.....

I find your belief that ship model builders must know how to loft frames ridiculous, the people that build real ships rarely know how to loft a hull from scratch.

I know how to do it, but that was only out of choice and curiosity, not necessity.
Click to expand...

With your background, I'm surprised you would offer such an argument. Why wouldn't a ship model builder have every bit as much, if not more of a likelihood of benefiting from knowing how frames were lofted than a shipyard worker? I have never said that "ship model builders must know how to loft frames" and I don't think anybody else has either. Ship model builders can buy plans and kits that provide that done by somebody else, just like the loftsmen do for the shipyard workers in real life. What I and others have said is that knowing how to do so enables a ship model builder to build whatever they want and better understand what they are building on their own without needing to rely on purchased plans or kits and so not be constrained in their subject choices to those offered for sale by others. Moreover, a ship model builder is not analogous to a shipyard worker at all. The ship model builder may choose to only perform the role of the shipyard worker by building a kit, or building to modeling plans, but unlike the yard riveter, the ship modeler has the option to be naval architect, loftsman, and shipyard worker all in one, should they wish to do so... if, and only if, they acquire the skills of those occupations along with those of the riveters!

My comments were in response to Dave's question of whether he should offer information on drafting and lofting in his "ship modeling school" posts. My endorsement of his doing so was based on my belief that learning to read lines plans and basic lofting would enhance the modeling abilities and enrich the modeling experience of those who were starting out and stand them in good stead should they ever wish to get into to scratch building. This is the same reason you gave for learning these things in "real life:" "out of choice and curiosity, not necessity."
 
Roger Pellett said:
I can belong to the forum, read the threads that interest me and sometimes press the like button. That would make me a semi-lurker. I go my way scratch building models and the kit builders go theirs. Things are nice and peaceful.

But then someone asks a question. I am fortunate to own a large library so, I spend time researching the question and writing an answer using correct grammar, spelling, and yes proper terminology. Several things might happen:
A. Nothing. My effort is ignored
B. The questioner says, “oh it doesn’t matter, I just do this for fun.”
C. “The instructions say: ABCXYZ, etc.”

Or like Bob Cleek did, I refer the questioner to an authoritative source. Three things happen:
A. Nothing, as above.
B. “I can’t understand the book.”
C. “The book is too expensive”

These responses come across as arrogant because they are dismissive of time, experience, and intellectual effort that has been put into answering the question. So, why would any knowledgeable forum member bother to answer these questions? Because there are some members that do appreciate and respond to well researched answers.

If someone answers a questIon using correct nautical and technical terminology they are not being elitist, they are just communicating in a clear correct manner.

Roger
Click to expand...

Absolutely! And to that list you can add:

Somebody says they can't understand what the lines drawings they're looking at mean and so you explain that to them and suggest they read up on drafting and lofting because they're powerful tools to use in their modeling. Three things happen:
A. Nothing, as above.
B. The questioner says they don't have the time or the inclination to learn the material necessary to answer their own questions.
C. The "Usual Suspects" go ballistic calling you "arrogant" and "elitist" and accuse you of "discouraging" people from ship modeling.

:D :D :D

I think that this phenomenon explains why so few of the living "grand masters" of ship modeling (scratch-builders all) ever participate in online forums. It does get to the point where one seriously starts to question why one bothers to participate at all. Maybe guys like Anscherl, Reed, McCaffery, Napier, and the rest have figured out that it's better to just write a book and make a few bucks instead of giving away free information on the internet.
 
Bob Cleek said:
With your background, I'm surprised you would offer such an argument. Why wouldn't a ship model builder have every bit as much, if not more of a likelihood of benefiting from knowing how frames were lofted than a shipyard worker? I have never said that "ship model builders must know how to loft frames" and I don't think anybody else has either. Ship model builders can buy plans and kits that provide that done by somebody else, just like the loftsmen do for the shipyard workers in real life. What I and others have said is that knowing how to do so enables a ship model builder to build whatever they want and better understand what they are building on their own without needing to rely on purchased plans or kits and so not be constrained in their subject choices to those offered for sale by others. Moreover, a ship model builder is not analogous to a shipyard worker at all. The ship model builder may choose to only perform the role of the shipyard worker by building a kit, or building to modeling plans, but unlike the yard riveter, the ship modeler has the option to be naval architect, loftsman, and shipyard worker all in one, should they wish to do so... if, and only if, they acquire the skills of those occupations along with those of the riveters!

My comments were in response to Dave's question of whether he should offer information on drafting and lofting in his "ship modeling school" posts. My endorsement of his doing so was based on my belief that learning to read lines plans and basic lofting would enhance the modeling abilities and enrich the modeling experience of those who were starting out and stand them in good stead should they ever wish to get into to scratch building. This is the same reason you gave for learning these things in "real life:" "out of choice and curiosity, not necessity."
Click to expand...

Bob, with all due respect I suggest you revisit your post #151

In response to your latest post, I would argue that a handful of members have a habit of turning innocent topics into heated arguments,

I agree with Jim, new builders may find this attitude elitist.

Personally, I am sick to the back teeth of this underlying conflict between kit and scratch snobbery

In response to the ORIGINAL topic, the biggest cost to kit vs scratch is time, on that note I have wasted far to much time reading and replying to this drivel
 
I have seen some fine arguments come along here that made this discussion interesting in my view. Just to name a few that from Ken and Tobias a few pages back. I also see a few nonsense posts come along from individuals who seemingly want to be right and contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion.
In conclusion to the entirety of the discussion, we can distinguish between builders of both kits and scratch.
I knew a builder of kits who built about 25 kits in his lifetime. Among them were kits that did cost more than 1500 euros. But on average converted to today's value you are talking about 25x 400 Euro plus extras and tools. And then you quickly arrive at an amount of 12 to 14 thousand Euros. On the other hand, I know a scratch builder who has built about 5 ships in almost the same way as 200 years ago, without modern machinery and the like. His tools will have a value of 500 Euro and on wood and the like he spent the same. The skills of this builder are amazing.
Then when I look at Oleg who spends something around $6,000 on materials for 1 ship, not to mention his tools. If I look at myself I have spent half of that in 6 years. Mainly on tools. Amazing build to follow.
We may conclude that you can't draw an arrow as to what the cost of scratch or kits entails.
It is all up to the scratch builder how many tools he wants to buy, whether he uses waste wood or buys new, or if he collects old kits to salvage wood from them. The same is also true for kit builders. Does he buy expensive kits or does he buy cheaper kits (second hand is also a possibility).
Then the factor is how much is a builder going to do. At what age does he start building. At a young age he can make more ships but at a later age it will be fewer. And that certainly applies to a scratch builder. Who builds a little longer on a model. Expensive tools pay back when your live longer and build longer.
The bottom line, then, is that everyone decides how much to spend and how. Whether you make scratch or kits. Your budget determines. And the most important thing you forget is what makes the builder happiest. Whether he has the ability to read drawings or not, whether he knows shipping terms or not. After all, it is a hobby. Where you want to unwind. I have fun in my way of building. No drawing needed because they were not officially used in the yard either. But I can also imagine that not everyone can do this. Fine. I take my hat off to that too.
 
Bob Cleek said:
For the umpteenth time, Jim, nobody is intentionally discouraging anyone from anything. If you feel discouraged by the viewpoints others have expressed, that's your issue, not theirs. To the contrary, those of us who urge others to expand their knowledge are encouraging them to enjoy a greater appreciation of the model ship building endeavor in all its aspects. Dave's question was whether it would be of benefit to some for him to address the basic principles of plans reading and lofting (which necessarily requires an understanding of basic nomenclature) in his generous "ship modeling school" posts, to which a number of us heartily agreed. It is not the "scratch builders versus the kit builders" at all. If anything, it is some of the kit builders who are projecting their own issues with imagined "elitism." It's not a question of "better" or "worse," it's a matter of encouraging people to widen their horizons. If they choose not to do so, that's entirely their prerogative. While a case can easily be made for why anyone who wishes to be a musician would do well to learn to read music, there are still those accomplished musicians who manage to make beautiful music playing "by ear" and they don't seem to have a need to call those who read music "elitists." I fail to see why ship modeling needs to be any different.
Click to expand...
For the umpteenth time, you say it’s not about scratch vs. kit, yet every time someone brings up a different point, you hijack the conversation and steer it right back there. You keep claiming it’s about “encouraging growth”, but it always ends with a smug nudge that if someone isn’t reading plans or lofting, they’re somehow not doing it right. That’s not encouragement - that’s condescension with a coat of varnish.

Nobody here has an issue with people sharing knowledge; the issue is with your constant undercurrent that kits are somehow second-rate, and that anyone defending them must be “projecting.” That’s rich. If anyone’s projecting here, it’s the one who keeps needing to justify his own sense of superiority by rehashing the same tired division over and over, again and again, from post to post in most threads.

So no, dear friend, it’s not about being “offended” or “discouraged.” It’s about being fed up with the subtle digs, the smug comparisons, and the endless turning of every thread into your personal soapbox about scratch building purity. Enough already.
 
Bob Cleek said:
I don't necessarily disagree with that premise and certainly it represents the core of the sales pitch most of the kit manufacturers make, whether it be express or implied. The low number of completed kits to overall kits sold is proof of that! Query whether that really encourages people to attempt to build a ship model or, in actuality, discourages many more who bite off more than they can chew at the marketers' invitations only in frustration to abandon their interest entirely.

You really are projecting your own issues and "grinding your own axe" here, though. Please note that what you have described above is not what I said. I said nothing of the kind. What I said, in context, was this:

Drafting, be it manual or CAD, ... is just another of the skills one needs to acquire to build ship models from scratch. At the risk of bruising egos, I must say that, as far as I'm concerned, those who are serious about the hobby acquire such skills for exactly that reason. There are others who will say that they have no interest in drafting or lofting and they prefer to buy their plans for modeling readymade. There is certainly a market for them and no reason not to buy them if one so desires, but, as with so much else, including, but not limited to, modernly, things like 3d printing, the more one buys and the less they do on their own, the less of their models they build themselves.

Roger Pellet is so right that "Drafting is a language." There's really nothing for it but to learn the language before you "pass go." Drafting seems to be a common stumbling block for a lot of ship modelers, as does nautical nomenclature. Frankly, I can't see how anybody could even begin to aspire to building ship models without having at least a basic mechanical drawing class under their belt, a set of instruments, and a reference manual or two. The same is true of nautical nomenclature. If one does not wish to learn the proper terms, a language unto itself, to be sure, then maybe they really should consider another hobby. I realize kits excuse many from acquiring the essential basic skills of model ship building, but those who avail themselves of such "frozen TV dinner" shortcuts deprive themselves and their models of what could have been a real home-cooked gourmet meal.

I was speaking of those who are "lazy and dismissive" (your description) and take the position that they do not wish to learn the proper terms (ever.) I was not speaking of those who simply haven't learned them as yet and all this in the context of Dave's question whether it might be helpful to address plans reading, lofting, and, necessarily nomenclature, in his "ship modeling school" posts for the benefit of the latter group, not the former. It was and is my considered opinion that anyone who approaches ship modeling in the manner you have described as "lazy and dismissive" will be disappointed because their progress, such as it may be, will ultimately be thwarted by their lack of knowledge. I fully realize there are some who are satisfied with that and, given that fact, whether including these subjects in Dave's "school" posts would be helpful to those who wanted to learn what Dave has to share is none of their concern because by their own choice they have no "dog in the fight." It would seem as well, neither do you, for you are not a beginning modeler.
Click to expand...
You’re incredibly persistent - I’ll give you that. Still, no matter how many layers of “context” you wrap it in, the message remains the same: your version of ship modeling is the only “serious” one, and everyone else is just playing with frozen dinners because they are lazy. You may not say those exact words out loud, but every paragraph drips with the same self-satisfied dismissal. I don't think I am the only one seeing it.

And please, spare me the lectures about projection and bruised egos. Every time someone challenges your gatekeeping, you retreat into semantics and claim it's all a misunderstanding, but your meaning is crystal clear. Your obsession with who is "serious," who’s “lazy,” who should “consider another hobby,” and what percentage of a model someone “actually builds” is exhausting. Who said we need your lectures? We’re here to enjoy the craft, not pass your purity tests.

You want to help beginners? Great — then help. But stop hiding judgment behind condescension dressed up as mentorship. It’s not about learning or growth with you, it’s about control. And that? That’s not ship modeling, that’s ego modeling.

So build your way, and let others build theirs. End of story.
 
what Bob is trying to say is you cannot build a scale model of a ship if you do not know how the real ship was built. to understand how to build a ship you have to know and understand the terms and methods. kit building is not building a scale model of a ship.

Here is another point of view and seeing the big picture
to build a modern day war ship takes a team of a few hundered people all highly skilled in their line of work. Now taking a look at Henry Eckford Henry and his group of ship carpenters traveled from New York by horseback to the shores of lake Erie in 1812. With no power tools, no drawings or set of plans, no fancy mold loft Henry and his carpenters started with standing timber and built and launched a war ship in 90 days. William Bell who served an apprenticeship under master shipwright Munn then went to an outpost in Amherstburg and built a fleet of war ship. with next to nothing. Noah Brown and Henry Eckford built one of the largest 1st rate war ship ever built, on the shores of lake Onterio.
For me personally i am awe struck on how these guys did what they did. I draw my inspiration from men who knew exactly how to build these structures in the wilderness. My driving force is in knowing the how and capturing it in a scale model. Durning the war years the Admiralty build war ships in England, took them apart and sent then to North America where the parts were carries overland to the Great Lakes and reassembled. William Bell looked at a pile of timbers and knew exactly how to rebuilt the ship. These are engineering feats of epic proportions that inspire the artist in me and the driving force to not accept "good enough" i need more i have that desire. To be called some elitest or demi-god who thinks they are better than all the rest in an insult. This very topic is an insult to the art of model ship building.
you have to serve an apprenticeship in any field to fully understand what it means to be a student under a master. to be told it is not good enough, to be told this is how it is done, these are the rules and methods. To see and watch a master at work lights that burning desire to move forward. i feel sorry for those to stop and accept "good enough" when you reached journeymen then you take that training and apply it to your personal creativity.

this topic is like arguing is the sky blue or is it a shade of blue
 
Given the fir still in the air, I'm a bit afraid to comment. Despite my age, I'm still foolish soo. "To build a "scale model ship." is the issue here. I set out to build an historically accurate model of Bellona. With all of the missing information, all I can do at this time is to do the best I can. Why does the builder of a kit have to be judged by the concept of building a scale model. To me the word "scale" has two meanings. 1. Smaller or larger than an original. 2. Accurate.
The last Revel kit for Bubba's whatever says scale kit. It is smaller, is it accurate?
Its a kit. It is a compromise. It is a hobby. My therapist just told me to shut up
warren
 
Last edited:
May be IT could be Wise to close this thread to keep peaceful this forum.

that is a good idea

Jim your doing the exact same thing you accuse Bob of doing just from another point of view

You're free to hold your view - just stop preaching it like it's gospel.
 
Nimbrook: BC (Before Covid) the Naval Architecture department at the University of Michigan invited me to give a talk to students about my career. While there, I connected with Professor Robert Beck who had been a classmate of mine way back in the 1960’s. During our conversation the subject of hand drafting of lines for building ship models came up. Referring to industrial practice he said, “Nobody lofts lines anymore.” What did he mean? In large shipyards lines are drawn with CAD and lofting is done within the computer that communicates directly with plate burning and frame bending equipment in the various shipyard shops. You are right, those erecting the steel have no need to know how it was shaped.

There are ship model builders who have the know how, financial means, and desire to rig up such a system. As we know parts of the system; CAD systems, CNC milling and laser cutting already exist. They just need to be integrated into a seamless system. Is this ship model building? That’s the subject for another debate. For those of us who don’t want to sit in front of a computer screen lofting is still an important scratch building skill.

Of course, like all generalizations, there are exceptions to Professor Beck’s comments. Some small yards building wooden boats and yachts still draw lines by hand, carve half models and loft their designs.

Roger
 
Hmm... Then what is it I've been building these last 5 years? I thought I was building scale models of the HMS Fly, the Vasa, the Bluenose. Please tell me what the heck I've been doing!

there are two ways
1 building a model of a ship that is as close as research will take you then fill in the blanks with what you personally know

2 building a ship model that might sort of look like the real thing but no way is it constructed like the real thing There are " kits" out there that are very close to the first definition. so kit or scratch is not even part of this

both are valid
build a model of a ship
build a ship model
a small difference between the two but worlds apart
 
Dave Stevens (Lumberyard) said:
Hmm... Then what is it I've been building these last 5 years? I thought I was building scale models of the HMS Fly, the Vasa, the Bluenose. Please tell me what the heck I've been doing!

there are two ways
1 building a model of a ship that is as close as research will take you then fill in the blanks with what you personally know

2 building a ship model that might sort of look like the real thing but no way is it constructed like the real thing There are " kits" out there that are very close to the first definition. so kit or scratch is not even part of this

both are valid
build a model of a ship
build a ship model
a small difference between the two but worlds apart
Click to expand...
I have seen some very nice-looking ship kits for sale on your website. If I were to buy one and build it, would I be building a scale model of a ship or something else?
 
RussF said:
I'm sure everyone enjoys seeing the work of expert scratch builders as much as I do. I therefore did a search through Completed Models as well as the scratch-built logs and could find no examples of Bob's work. Is there any? He talks a good game, but ...
Click to expand...

And you won't find examples of my work for a number of reasons. 1.) I have nothing to offer anyone in terms of build logs or pictures of finished models that hasn't been offered many times over before by far better modelers than myself. 2.) For the last several years, my modeling has been limited to restoration and repair work, together with research for future builds because I have had to care for my invalid wife and because my restoration and repair work is the private business of the owners of those models which I am not at liberty to publish on the internet. 3.) I don't feel the need to enhance my credibility by showing off what a great modeler I am, an unsustainable assertion in any event. I post what I believe to be accurate and hope to be helpful to those who might avail themselves of it and I expect my comments to be evaluated by the reader solely upon the merit of their content. So, if you are wondering whether I know what I am talking about, you'll have to rely upon what I've said to draw your conclusions and if you find that insufficient, I suppose that leaves you in a place you've been plenty of times before.
 
Daniel20 said:
Awe, this is just an old fashion school yard dust up amongst a bunch of good ole boys (some of us very old) who enjoy a good argument. No harm or ill will intended at least from my point of view.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! It's good mental exercise for the geriatric set. I'm with you! There's absolutely nothing about building model ships that is of sufficient importance to be worth getting your panties in a bunch over.
 
Dave Stevens (Lumberyard) said:
what Bob is trying to say is you cannot build a scale model of a ship if you do not know how the real ship was built. to understand how to build a ship you have to know and understand the terms and methods. kit building is not building a scale model of a ship.
Click to expand...
What Bob is saying might sound deep to those who’ve confused their ego for expertise, but it’s flat-out wrong. You absolutely can build a scale model of a ship without being a shipwright or having memorized every obscure term from an 18th-century manual and knowing how the real ship was built. People have been doing it, and doing it well, for generations.

This holier-than-thou attitude that kit building "is not real scale modeling" is pure elitist nonsense. A scale model is judged by scale, craftsmanship, and accuracy, not by how many trees you felled, boards you milled, or how much naval jargon you can throw around. Kits are a valid, respected part of the hobby, and for many, the doorway into deeper learning, not a dead-end shortcut.

If Bob or anyone else wants to measure ship modeling by how "pure" it is, maybe they should go build actual ships instead, because clearly, they’ve forgotten what a hobby is and why such does exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top